Several major economies, including the U.S. and Canada, rely heavily on fossil fuel production and exports. But the surging market penetration of renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency improvements, and climate emission policies are certain to substantially reduce the global demand for fossil fuels.

In a seminal paper published a week ago in Nature Climate Change, researchers present the results of sophisticated multi-dimensional modeling of the macro-economic impacts of future technology transformations and climate change policy, as the demand for fossil fuels declines and the price of oil falls.

This is a peer-reviewed paper that was scrutinized by other experts for almost a year before it was accepted for publication. Its warnings should be taken seriously.

Irrespective of whether or not new climate policies are adopted, global demand growth for fossil fuels is already slowing due to the accelerating transition to a low carbon global economy. Given the pace of low-carbon technology market penetration, fossil fuel assets are likely to become stranded due to advances in renewable energy deployment, improvements in energy efficiency, and the electrification of the transportation sector.

There can be no doubt that a global energy transition is fully underway. Last year was another record-breaking year for renewable energy — characterized by the largest ever increase in renewable power capacity, falling costs, increased investment, and advances in enabling technologies.

Solar photovoltaic capacity installations were off the chart — nearly double those of wind power (in second place) — and adding more net capacity than coal, natural gas, and nuclear power combined.Check out the numbers.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit the increase in global average temperatures to below 2°C. Attaining this objective absolutely requires that a fraction of existing reserves of fossil fuels remain in the ground, and that a part of present production capacity remains unused — effectively becoming stranded assets.

Since investors had assumed that these reserves will be commercialized, the stocks of listed fossil fuel companies may soon be judged to be over-valued. This situation gives rise to the possibility of a “carbon bubble” — which may eventually burst with global economic consequences.

The modeling results show that the lower demand for fossil fuels leads to substantial stranded fossil fuel assets weven if climate change policies are not adopted. For individual countries, the effects vary depending on their marginal costs of production, with oil production becoming concentrated in OPEC member countries–where costs are lower. Regions with higher marginal costs experience a steep decline in production (for instance Russia), or risk losing a substantial part of their oil and gas industries — like Canada and the U.S.

The Sell-out

The magnitude of the economic impact depends on a variety of factors. The analysis suggests that the behavior of low-cost producers and/or the adoption of 2°C policies can lead to an amplification of the losses. If low-cost producers decide to increase their ratio of production relative to reserves to outplay other asset owners and minimize their losses by selling out early–in effect a “sell-out” — this strategy has a major and very negative impact on higher cost producers.

The low carbon transition generates a modest GDP and employment increase in regions with limited exposure to fossil fuel production (for example, most of the EU and Japan). This is due to a reduction of the trade imbalance arising from fossil fuel imports, and higher employment arising from new investment in low carbon technologies. The improvement occurs despite the general increase in energy prices and hence costs for energy intensive industries.

However, fossil fuel exporters experience a steep decline in their output and employment due to the near shutdown of their fossil fuel industry. These patterns emerge even though there is only a modest overall impact on global GDP — indicating the impacts are primarily distributional with clear winners — the EU and China, and clear losers — the U.S. and Canada.

Gains and Losses

The figure below shows the gains and losses for major economies including the U.S. and Canada through to 2035. The units are in trillions of U.S. dollars. The principal winners are the EU, China and India. The main losers are the U.S. and Canada.

Although the U.S. losses are larger in absolute terms, the percentage loss of GDP for Canada is much larger — increasing to over 20 percent within the next ten years. Unemployment increases to around 8 percent over the same time frame. These projections are shown in the graphs below.

For Canada, the higher marginal costs of oil sands production (including transport to tidewater via pipelines or oil trains) doom the industry to a future of increasingly curtailed production and stranded assets.

It’s in the context of these long term macroeconomic projections that the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline should be viewed. Within a decade there will be no market for the oil sands production of heavy oil and bitumen. Low-cost producers, sensing the end of an era, will start to sell off their assets. Oil prices will tumble.

It makes no sense to build a pipeline intended to increase production from the oil sands when even maintaining the existing level of production is seriously in doubt.

Justin Trudeau, now the proud owner of an obsolete and very expensive pipeline, should check the fine print.

The world is still using more fossil fuels every year the GDP grows, including oil.

This trend looks set to continue for at least another decade, given how fast new ICE’s are adopted and the time it will take green energy to continue to reach significant volumes compared to fossil fuels.

Beyond the point where more fossil fuels like oil are burned, the demand for other uses like plastics, asphalt, etc. is still likely to grow, and will be a significant component of oil demand for at least several decades. This is true even if BEV’s became 100% of the transport system in 3 to 5 decades.

So despite the fantasies of anti-smog blogs, etc., the odds of large amount of fossil fuels being “stranded” in a short to moderate timeframe aren’t consequential.

rockman on Mon, 11th Jun 2018 11:48 am

“It makes no sense to build a pipeline intended to increase production from the oil sands when even maintaining the existing level of production is seriously in doubt.” Complete bullshit. First, the primary goal IS NOT to increase production. It’s to openup a new export market which should increase competition for Alberta oil exports and put upward pressure on the price Canadian producers receive. Second, such pipeline projects are designed recover their investments within 4 to 6 years. Otherwise such projects won’t produce an acceptable rate of return.

It’s ridiculous to expect the factors offered would reduce demand for oil by any significant level to impact the pipeline economics. Additionally, if the new export market does increase the price for Alberta oil it will increase the potential profitability of NEW oil sands projects. Which would only increase the value of the new pipeline.

The analysis downgrading the value of the new pipeline represents a common basis in such reports IMHO. The desire to see such projects not take place creates unrealistic assumptions. Similar to the anti-oil
reports predicting the lack of expansion of oil sands exports to the US by denying the border crossing permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Alternate pipeline capacity was developed and the export volume increased. And yet the anti-oil sands crowd still declared victory by ignoring the obvious facts.

Reminds me of the press releases of “Baghdad Bob”. LOL

BobInget on Mon, 11th Jun 2018 11:49 am

Oil operations in Alaska are specially designed for freezing conditions. But as the climate changes, the state is warming twice as fast as the rest of the country. That poses a challenge for the oil industry, and a boon for Alaska businesses that are creating products to help it cope.

Brian Shumaker is one such entrepreneur who knows how tricky it can be to operate in the Arctic, where he once did some engineering work for oil companies.

“Imagine for a moment you’ve just landed in a helicopter out on the tundra,” he says, “you’re about a hundred miles from anywhere, and it’s costing you a dollar a second to be here.”

Companies must build hundreds of miles of ice roads — roads literally made of ice — to move the massive equipment used for oil exploration. But state regulators don’t allow that construction to start until the fragile tundra is sufficiently frozen. And scientists report that freeze-up is happening up to two months later than it did in the 1980s.

BTW the TransCanada pipeline, like all other oil/NG pipelines in the history of fossil fuel transportation, will eventually become a “stranded asset” and will be abandoned. That fact does not alter decisions for their construction.

BobInget on Mon, 11th Jun 2018 12:04 pm

Canada’s pipeline construction gets a huge boost
from trumps trade war.
It just won’t do to have the US as a sole customer.

Did you know Canada needs to sell it’s oil at a discount to US? Just because US refineries have Canada by the balls..

When Inter Mountain is complete, work should begin on ‘Canada East’ instead of importing Brent
prices crude on Canada’s East Coast.

Until that time (years) Canada should TAX oil EXPORTS to the US on a percentage basis.
(watch Trump roll around on the floor like the toddler he is)

If demand were there, Canada’s oil sands alone could supply all US Imports.

By 2020 US domestic consumption should be well OVER current 20 Million Barrels P/D

BobInget on Mon, 11th Jun 2018 12:10 pm

Exactly where will ChInda get oil Rockman?

Venezuela won’t be back to full production for years. Maxed out KSA can’t fill that gap.

Bloomer on Mon, 11th Jun 2018 1:46 pm

The worlds demand for crude continues to grow at the expense of the climate. One day all assets in every industry will be stranded.

Cryptoexmart.com is my go to when I want to buy or sell bitcoins directly to receive funds in my PayPal account. My advice to everyone is to be careful and make that money, haha.

eugene on Mon, 11th Jun 2018 6:45 pm

World population is increasing 1.5 million a week. Last I saw oil consumption continues to increase but if you want to place you hopes on miniscule renewables, have at it. Electric cars are 1 to 2% of sales. Meantime America has placed all faith in the messiah promising eternal wealth with a return to the glory days. Time is of the essence here folks.

deadly on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 5:06 am

You mean stranded assets like wind parks and solar farms, all destined for the junk pile in less than fifteen years.

They ain’t what they are cracked up to be, that’s for sure.

I have a truck that doesn’t run, the engine is worn out, gone too many miles. It’s a stranded asset. The tires and some mechanical parts are salvageable and have value, but that takes time. Can’t even get the gas from the tank, too much of a chore. An asset, yet a liability. The other stranded asset in the trees is now an active asset, it has antique value. I want a pretty penny for the piece of junk nowadays.

The very first pipeline was nine miles long and made of wood. The Teamsters didn’t like it, cut into their oil hauling business. Luddites through and through.

You’d think that pipeline would still be used to this day instead of being a stranded asset. Useless, should have never been built.

Nobody should have ever invented the wheel.

Just harness a horse and hitch a couple of long poles to the horse harness,stretch canvas from pole to pole, voila, a cargo carrier.

The wheel, not oil, has brought civilization to the brink of extinction.

Along came an engine and a drivetrain, the story goes from there.

Ban the wheel, life will change immensely, oil won’t be used nearly as much. Everything will crash and burn.

No cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, not even a coach and four. All gone. No bikes at all. Get that rickshaw off the street.

Walk. Ride a donkey. Buy a sailboat if you want to get somewhere. One with a tiller, not a helm.

Won’t have to spend all the time and money building a pipeline, just have the wheel banned.

Every pipeline out there will become a stranded asset. Don’t have to be anti-fossil fuels when you can be anti-wheel.

You’ll accomplish much more in the quest to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Won’t be able to have coal-fired power plants, you need an armature and that is a wheel all gussied up.

Gotta get Greenpeace on the wheel banning project sooner than later.

An easy answer to the problem of fossil fuel overconsumption and definitely a solution.

I’m serious.

Of course, forests will be cut night and day, by hand to have firewood to cook dinner over an open fire.

You’ll be building an outhouse too.

We all know nobody is going to stop using wheels, wheels get you there in less time, one horsepower or 250 horsepower, wheels are needed in the worst way to make it happen like it all does.

If there can be wheels, then there can be engines, steam, ice, electric, and since there are fossil fuels, humans have found ways whereby fossil fuels can be used to advance the cause.

When the power goes out, you want it back right now.

At a clip of one hundred million barrels per day, and with one point two trillion recoverable known reserves to go, one point two trillion divided by 36.5 billion barrels per year, there are 33 years of oil burning like there is no tomorrow to go.

Just be thankful some nut came up with the idea of the wheel.

It is too bad somebody conjured up a laser gyroscope, rockets can fly with one of those helping the trajectory.

Ban laser gyroscopes, rockets can’t fly with no gyroscope.

You have to strike at the root.

The imbecile from the Orient has a conversation with the imbecile from the Occident.

“Despite tariffs that President Trump imposed on imported panels, the U.S. installed more solar energy than any other source of electricity in the first quarter. Developers installed 2.5 gigawatts of solar in the first quarter, up 13 percent from a year earlier, according to a report Tuesday from the Solar Energy Industries Association and GTM Research. That accounted for 55 percent of all new generation, with solar panels beating new wind and natural gas turbines for a second straight quarter.”

Antius on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 6:52 am

“Solar Surpasses Gas and Wind as Biggest Source of New U.S. Power”

“2.5 gigawatts of solar in the first quarter”

If true, then we should all be worried. 2.5GW of solar power will produce 250-500MW on a time average basis. That is a paultry 0.1-0.2% of average US power generation; equivalent to a single small coal generating set.

If solar is indeed the biggest source of new power, then it suggests that new investments are seriously lagging what is needed to replace existing power capacity, far less any new growth.

“Exactly where will ChInda get oil Rockman?” If the pipeline is built to the coast one obvious potential source will be the Canadian oil sands. And unlikely the US will have the opportunity to outbid China or India. Remember such pipeline projects are not built without the guarantee of a minimum amount of volume transported. Which means a guaranteed buyer on the refinery end. If the Chinese and/or Indian refineries sign such long term purchase contracts that volume of oil sands production will be off the market for at least the next 15 years.

rockman on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 10:10 am

deadly – “You mean stranded assets like wind parks and solar farms, all destined for the junk pile in less than fifteen years.” So what? That doesn’t mean they can’t be good investments. In 42 years I have not drilled one well that produced more then 15 years. And the majority were profitable…some extremely profitable.

Name one part of the infrastructure that can last forever.

BobInget on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 10:34 am

Trump won’t give up.

CNBC: today

Trump says Trudeau’s comments are going to cost Canada ‘a lot of money’
“That’s going to cost a lot of money for the people of Canada,” Trump says of the speech by the Canadian Prime Minister following the G-7 meeting.

Trump’s comments come at a press conference in Singapore following his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
It was unclear what additional action the U.S. would take against Canada. The U.S. at the end of May imposed metals tariffs on the country and is in the middle of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. MORE at following link:

(Trump hasn’t the foggiest how dependent American’s are on Canada’s oil exports)

Any objections to building Trans Mountain or Canada East, are meting away faster than Greenland’s ice cap. With NAFTA in danger of collapse, with Trump’s embrace of Russia and N.Korea, not old allies, with Canada’s single export crude oil customer forming a circular firing squad, Trans Mountain is a question
of Top Priority.

IMO< $4 gasoline will send a message to Trump's voters, and Republican Congress.
Like i said in a previous post, Canada should simply tax oil exports to the US.

MASTERMIND on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 11:04 am

BobInget

He hates Trudeau for the same reasons he hates Obama..He is younger, more attractive, and well liked by the entire world..Everything Trump isn’t..

As ruling nears, a briefing says a new Line 3 would be safer for environment.

By Mike Hughlett Star Tribune JUNE 11, 2018 — 7:35PM

Allowing Enbridge to build a controversial new oil pipeline across northern Minnesota would be better for the environment than to continue relying on the aging, corroding pipeline that it would replace, according to staff for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

The PUC staff comments are a recommendation for a new Line 3, but they are not the final decision in regard to the project.

After conducting four public meetings this month, the PUC is expected to determine whether the proposed $2.6 billion Line 3 project should get a “certificate of need” and, if so, what route the pipeline should take.

As is common before PUC meetings, the commission’s staff files briefing papers that sum up the issues. They often include PUC staff analysis and recommendations.

In briefing papers filed Friday, PUC staff wrote: “A fair reading of the record would support the conclusion that, with respect to effects of the [Line 3] project on the natural environment, the consequences of granting a certificate of need for the project are more beneficial than denying it because of the risk of catastrophic failure of the existing line, despite it being operated at reduced pressure.”

The 1960s-vintage Line 3, one of six Enbridge pipelines that ferry Canadian oil across Minnesota, runs at only 51 percent capacity due to safety concerns. Enbridge said a new pipeline would be safer and would restore the full flow of oil. If a new Line 3 is denied, Enbridge plans to keep operating — and regularly repairing — the old one.

As proposed, a new Line 3 would divert from Enbridge’s existing pipeline corridor at Clearbrook, Minn., jutting south to Park Rapids before heading east to Superior, Wis. Opponents of the project — environmental and American Indian groups — said Enbridge’s new route would open a new region of lakes, rivers and wild-rice waters to degradation from possible oil spills.

Scott Strand, an attorney for the environmental group Friends of the Headwaters, said the PUC staff seems to see environmental threats from a new pipeline as secondary to worries over old Line 3.

“They have made a judgment that if [the PUC] makes the old line go away, that trumps all other issues, and I just don’t think that’s the case.”

In April, Administrative Law Judge Ann O’Reilly recommended that Enbridge be granted a certificate of need due to Line 3’s constant need for repairs and its “integrity issues,” as well to prevent rationing to Enbridge’s customers. Enbridge maintains it doesn’t have enough pipeline capacity to meet oil shippers’ needs.

While administrative law judge decisions carry significant weight, like recommendations from the PUC staff they are not binding.

Enbridge said in a statement Monday that it was “pleased to see the PUC staff has agreed” with O’Reilly’s recommendation for a certificate of need.

The PUC staff took issue with O’Reilly’s recommendation to tie the certificate of need to the proposed pipeline’s route.

O’Reilly said the new route’s possible environmental consequences to society — namely oil spills — outweighed its benefits. Instead, she recommended that Enbridge dig up old Line 3 and drop a new pipeline in its place.

However, the existing Line 3 runs through two Indian reservations, and one band — the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe — has publicly and adamantly opposed any new pipelines on its land.

The PUC staff wrote Friday that O’Reilly’s “effort to single out one route as a necessary condition for the commission to find there is a need for the project does not comply with statute, rule and the commission’s past practice.”

MASTERMIND on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 11:49 am

I have seen a massive spike in fascism and ultranationalism on this site. As good jobs and resources get tighter, people become pitted against each other and fall prey to hate, fear and malice. If fascism is capitalism in decay, we are in decay..

GregT on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:26 pm

“As good jobs and resources get tighter, people become pitted against each other and fall prey to hate, fear and malice. ”

Sounds like you’re beginning to understand Cloggie’s POV. There was a time that I didn’t agree with him either.

MASTERMIND on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:28 pm

Greg

Shame on you for being a nationalist and an anti Semite.

MASTERMIND on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:32 pm

Greg

Clogg should be fighting the one percent.Instead hes is swallowing their propaganda like mothers milk..And turning his hatred towards people who have almost zero power in society (immigrants)..You know that are around 1400 billionaires in this world. And less than ten percent of them are Jewish..but lets not let facts get in the way of your paranoid conspiracy theories.

Davy on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:38 pm

Greggie, is a closet Nazi just like his groupie Nedernazi. I did get grehgiee to walk back from Holocaust denial. He does feel Hitler was a victim. That is pretty raunchy but par for the course with dumbass.

Boat on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:41 pm

Bob

Where can Canada go with it’s oil rather than the US. Until another pipeline is built Canada relies on the US for access to ports.
Bob, Canada net imports 3 mbpd. The US only needs 2.7. What you ment to say is the US should charge an extra fee for every barrel not consumed in the US.

JuanP on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:43 pm

Bob, I think Trump intends to destroy NAFTA before his first term is over.

Boat on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:43 pm

Mm

2200 billionaires worth over 9 trillion. Do a study.

JuanP on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:47 pm

MM “Clogg should be fighting the one percent.”
Why don’t you fight the 1% if you think it’s worth it instead of lurking on your mom’s basement and telling others how to live your life. Real leaders lead by example. I am afraid I won’t join you, though, because I don’t fight for lost causes, but you would earn my respect. It takes a better man than I am to fight for a lost cause knowing the fight is lost.

Boat on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:48 pm

JaunP

Why say destroy NAFTA. Why not call it tweaking until a fair trade balance is achieved.

Boat on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:50 pm

Bob

I meant to say Canada exports a net 3 mbpd.

MASTERMIND on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 12:53 pm

Who said NAFTA was unfair to the US? Canada’s average tariffs are half of what the US charges them..you people will believe anything Trump spews without question..the scaremongering never ends..And the stupid idiots on the right fall for it every time, hook, line and sinker.

“Yes, it will be like that, but may be worse with other extenuating circumstances such as war or the decline of international trade. Hyperinflation as happened in the Soviet and Post Soviet economy is a certainty.”

You are going to die from conflict or starvation in the next decade..That is a certainty..

Boat on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 1:10 pm

Mm

Your to young to have heard the giant sucking sound of jobs lost to economies that had lax environmental, poor worker pay, non-existent safety regulations etc. Corporations won. Countries that exploit people for profit won.
Trump doesn’t want to fix any of that. In fact he is dismantling worker and enviornmental laws as we speak. But…. He does want a trade balance.

You can claim terrifs being the same equates fairness. I suggest you do a study. Every trade deal with every country is a case by case study with terrifs just a small part of the equation.

GregT on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 2:03 pm

“Greg”

“Shame on you for being a nationalist and an anti Semite.”

You have expressed the same views towards nationalism as I have MM. I don’t believe in top down centralized control. It always leads to corruption, violence, and war.

Semite,

” person speaking one of a group of related languages, presumably derived from a common language, Semitic (see Semitic languages). The term came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes including Hebrews.”

But of course yourself and a couple of others here (especially Davy) are so far brainwashed from your lifelong barrage of spoon fed indoctrination, you really don’t have the slightest clue as to what you are going on about.

JuanP on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 2:15 pm

Boat “Why say destroy NAFTA. Why not call it tweaking until a fair trade balance is achieved.”
I was very clear. I believe Trump wants to completely get rid of (destroy, cancel, invalidate, annul) NAFTA, not tweak it, so that is what I said. Maybe YOU believe Trump wants to tweak NAFTA, I don’t, I believe he wants to destroy it. We are both guessing; time will tell.

JuanP on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 2:17 pm

Greg, You are definitely not alone. I am an anti Zionist, too.

MASTERMIND on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 2:29 pm

Boat

I know who cares what the facts are about tariffs..Lets be outraged for no reason..just face it the US can’t compete in the world economy..the only reason the US ever became a powerhouse was because most of Europe and Japan were destroyed during WW2..and we were the worlds largest oil producer and swing producer who could control the price of oil. We don’t make anything anymore we just clean each others laundry and flip houses to increase our fake GDP numbers..

You are a paranoid whack job..I bet you have a copy of david dukes famous book ‘The Zionist conspiracy”..lol

GregT on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 2:34 pm

“the only reason the US ever became a powerhouse was because most of Europe and Japan were destroyed during WW2”

Done on purpose, and Germany was the scapegoat. Zionism 101.

GregT on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 2:37 pm

“The Zionist conspiracy”

Which goes all the way back to biblical times MM. Stick with chemicals, you obviously don’t have the slightest clue about history either.

MASTERMIND on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 3:25 pm

Greg

Holy shit..You have gone full blown tin foil hat now..You have lost your marbles.. I knew you were a Nazi.. You are a lunatic whack job who has zero evidence to support your dubious claims.

MASTERMIND on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 3:34 pm

They call it generation Z because there won’t be another one..

Davy on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 4:09 pm

grehhgie, is scumbag de jure depending on the direction of the anti-American or anti-Semitic conversation. There is then the empty Asiaphile talk in support of his senile old man friend, the 3rd world. The closet Nazi support comes in for his boy the dumb dutch guy. The millennial weasel from canada then chimes in to give the whole charade a shit cream topping. These are disgusting people as are most of the anti-Americans on this forum. It is a special pleasure of mine to neuter their bad behavior. It doesn’t matter that there is many of them being attracted to the stench of this shit, all I have to do is call into question their lies and the seeds of doubt are sown.

JuanP on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 4:27 pm

MM “They call it generation Z because there won’t be another one.” You may be right about that. However this shit plays out that is one screwed generation, particularly because their delusional parents filled their heads with extremely unrealistic expectations and most of them have no useful skills. Urban members of the Last Generation think food magically appears in supermarket shelves, water in plastic bottles, and smartphones are what life is all about. I teach inner city kids organic food gardening once a week and I am completely horrified by how ignorant and useless they are.

Cloggie on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 4:37 pm

“I knew you were a Nazi”

“Nazi” is a smear word for the boobs, promoted by the globalist media, and Marxists like millimind and meathead, to defame anybody who expresses his desire to live in a separate community (“nationalism”), not under the control of Washington. Millimind and meathead are the modern day communists, code word “globalist”. The concept “Nazism” is for the rest completely meaningless in 2018. Nations no longer play a major role. As Samuel Hunting has shown what is a stake now is the survival of entire civilizations, based on race and/or religion and/or long history. For 1.5 billion people for instance is the 7th century more important, more defining than the progressive 20th century of former fame.

In the original non-pejorative context, National-Socialism and Fascism in the twenties were defense mechanism against “Jewish Communism”…

… that came first in 1917 and threatened to engulf other European nations besides Russia.

On top of that National-Socialism was a protest-movement against the “peace” of Versailles. The National-Socialists wanted all the German territories back, stolen from them in Versailles and they wanted to get rid of the enormous “reparation payments”, imposed on them by Britain and France, in a war that was imposed on them. The battle in the Weimar republic was between the communists under Jewish leadership and the nationalists about who would control Germany. The nationalists won, initially.

None of this has any meaning in the current context.

Today (((oligarchs))) no longer control Russia and hence Russia is demonized by the US-lead West around the clock, that wants to see Russia back in the globalist camp, while meanwhile waging a war against its own white population (“multiculturalism”) in order to make it powerless:

Make no mistake, this is a life and death struggle. They want to drown us in the third world through migration, used as a weapon against us, relentlessly promoted by them, so they get a hold over a new proletariat, with which they plan to carry out a new-Bolshevik revolution 2.0:

Europe is about to escape from the western orbit and taken over by populism, all it takes is the political death of Merkel, that isn’t very far off.

It would be nice if we can liberate a chunk of European-America as well, from the claws of millimind, Soros, de Niro, Krugman and the rest of the bunch. It is us or them. This is not the time for sentimentalities. The good news is, that we have solved this problem numerous times before. We are going to do it again. This time we have Russia, China, the world of Islam, European and American populists standing by to get the job done. It is going to be a walk over.

GregT on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 4:38 pm

“grehhgie, is scumbag de jure depending on the direction of the anti-American or anti-Semitic conversation.”

I believe that the term that so desperately alludes you Davy (and I know it’s probably a really complicated one for you), would be ‘du jour’.

The rest of your insane rant is nothing more than your usual paranoid delusional bullshit.

Get help buddy, before you hurt yourself, or god forbid, somebody else.

Makati1 on Tue, 12th Jun 2018 4:56 pm

‘But of course yourself and a couple of others here (especially Davy) are so far brainwashed from your lifelong barrage of spoon fed indoctrination, you really don’t have the slightest clue as to what you are going on about”